I have watched several other swamp watch videos, and some details I can buy, some not.

But as for health care in the US, the main problem is that the profit is primary, the care secondary, IMHO.

Spoken like a true Marxist. There is nothing inherently wrong with profit. Profit gave us the I-phone and the 747. Profit built the Shermans and B-17's that liberated all of your sorry asses. Profit gave us the statins and long-acting insulins and improved blood thinners and life-changing joint replacements.

None of that would have happened as quickly or at all without the US consumers of healthcare. That's partly why you are so full of shit on this. The American hospital "market" is very substantially non-profit. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

Also...I never have known your opinions to be "humble" so you can ash can the "IMHO"

_________________I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.

I have watched several other swamp watch videos, and some details I can buy, some not.

But as for health care in the US, the main problem is that the profit is primary, the care secondary, IMHO.

Spoken like a true Marxist. There is nothing inherently wrong with profit. Profit gave us the I-phone and the 747. Profit built the Shermans and B-17's that liberated all of your sorry asses. Profit gave us the statins and long-acting insulins and improved blood thinners and life-changing joint replacements.

None of that would have happened as quickly or at all without the US consumers of healthcare. That's partly why you are so full of shit on this. The American hospital "market" is very substantially non-profit. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

Also...I never have known your opinions to be "humble" so you can ash can the "IMHO"

If I think that single payer, universal healthcare is better than for profit system currently in the US does not mean that I am a marxist. Or then I am as much as marxist as Bernie Sanders is; not at all.

But then your outdated constitution does give health services as state guaranteed rights for all citizens. But then you are ripped off, the bang for the buck is better in many countries having single payer universal healthcare. Or what say you?

Watch the videos and comment.

_________________The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Spoken like a true Marxist. There is nothing inherently wrong with profit. Profit gave us the I-phone and the 747. Profit built the Shermans and B-17's that liberated all of your sorry asses. Profit gave us the statins and long-acting insulins and improved blood thinners and life-changing joint replacements.

None of that would have happened as quickly or at all without the US consumers of healthcare. That's partly why you are so full of shit on this. The American hospital "market" is very substantially non-profit. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.

Also...I never have known your opinions to be "humble" so you can ash can the "IMHO"

If I think that single payer, universal healthcare is better than for profit system currently in the US does not mean that I am a marxist. Or then I am as much as marxist as Bernie Sanders is; not at all.

But then your outdated constitution does give health services as state guaranteed rights for all citizens. But then you are ripped off, the bang for the buck is better in many countries having single payer universal healthcare. Or what say you?

Watch the videos and comment.

Where does Nero think that the drugs, medical innovations and treatments utilized by health care providers (in the US and elsewhere) come from?Are the developed by the single payer government run health care providers?

No:

Quote:

Don’t Thank Big Government for Medical BreakthroughsNew cures come from private research, not cash dumped into the National Institutes of Health.

By contrast, private investment in medicine has kept pace with the aging population and is the principal engine for advancement. More than 80% of new drug approvals originate from work solely performed in private companies. Note that such drug approvals come on average 16 years after the beginning of clinical trials, which typically cost $2.5 billion from start to finish. Even if grant-subsidized academics wanted to create a new drug, economic reality prevents it.

-------

And where are these drugs & medical innovations being developed?

Quote:

Medical Advancements: Who Is Leading the World?

By Kenneth ThorpeWhile there are many opinions about our nation’s health care system (particularly in Washington), there’s one overwhelming area of consensus — the United States leads the world in medical innovation.

In addition to the best and brightest practicing medicine and state-of-art medical facilities, we have benefited from having the best and, usually, the earliest access to the latest medical technologies and innovations. In large part, this is because they were discovered, developed and produced here in America.

When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.

The six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years, according to a 2001 poll of physicians, were magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT scan); ACE inhibitors, used in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure; balloon angioplasty; statins to lower cholesterol levels; mammography; and coronary artery bypass grafts. Balloon angioplasty came from Europe, four innovations on the list were developed in American hospitals or by American companies (although statins were based on earlier Japanese research), and mammography was first developed in Germany and then improved in the United States. Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies.

Of almost 3,000 articles published in biomedical research in 2009, 1,169, or 40%, came from the United States. As the line graph below demonstrates (that’s the number of publications on the Y axis, and the year of publication on the X axis), the output of every other single country in the world is dwarfed by what America produces. The closest contender is Great Britain, which comes in at about 300 articles. (Per the comments below, I'm waiting for more explanation of these numbers.)

So when it comes to biology and medicine, U.S. researchers are publishing more than those in other countries. And this probably shouldn't come as much of a shock. You can see the effect of the U.S. dominance in biology and medicine in the behavior of big drug companies. Novartis, a Basel, Switzerland-based drug giant, nonetheless chose to place its research headquarters in Cambridge, Mass., near Harvard and MIT, and to put a Harvard doctor and biologist, Mark Fishman, in charge of R&D. Sanofi-Aventis gives nearness to the U.S. research hubs as one of the reasons behind its pending purchase of Genzyme, the U.S. biotechnology giant.

And who in the US is developing all these drugs and medical innovations that are being used not only in the US but in much of the rest of the world as well?It's by for profit companies and in university studies funded by those for profit companies.

PS: I threw that chart in because I know how much a fan Neroi is of charts.

_________________The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Of almost 3,000 articles published in biomedical research in 2009, 1,169, or 40%, came from the United States. As the line graph below demonstrates (that’s the number of publications on the Y axis, and the year of publication on the X axis), the output of every other single country in the world is dwarfed by what America produces. The closest contender is Great Britain, which comes in at about 300 articles. (Per the comments below, I'm waiting for more explanation of these numbers.)

So when it comes to biology and medicine, U.S. researchers are publishing more than those in other countries. And this probably shouldn't come as much of a shock. You can see the effect of the U.S. dominance in biology and medicine in the behavior of big drug companies. Novartis, a Basel, Switzerland-based drug giant, nonetheless chose to place its research headquarters in Cambridge, Mass., near Harvard and MIT, and to put a Harvard doctor and biologist, Mark Fishman, in charge of R&D. Sanofi-Aventis gives nearness to the U.S. research hubs as one of the reasons behind its pending purchase of Genzyme, the U.S. biotechnology giant.

And who in the US is developing all these drugs and medical innovations that are being used not only in the US but in much of the rest of the world as well?It's by for profit companies and in university studies funded by those for profit companies.

PS: I threw that chart in because I know how much a fan Neroi is of charts.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum